Last month, a majority of the members of the International Telecommunications Union voted for a murky proposal, suggesting that the ITU has the power to regulate the Internet. The proposal was passed despite vociferous objections by the US and other developed countries. In the end, 55 countries refused to sign on, while 89 did sign the resolution.

That was seen as a success for the US and its allies, but anyone celebrating the outcome might be doing so too soon.

In fact, several of the companies that sided with the US only ended up in that position because of an overreach on the part of Iran, according to one speaker at a Thursday CES panel. Ambassador David Gross, who was the US representative to the ITU for several years, said that Iran decided to "meddle in a well-cooked document," adding an unusual "human rights" proposal that suggested a human right to access telecommunications networks.

The twist is that this was a situation in which the "human rights" were granted to a government, not to actual humans. The real goal was to strike a blow against sanctions. (Other behind-the-scenes accounts, including one published on Ars, suggest this proposal originated with Cuba. In any case, both countries supported it.)

"Europe voted for the bulk of the ITRs (International Telecommunications Regulations) in this space," noted Robert McDowell, an FCC Commissioner who was in attendance. Most European countries didn't support the final proposal because of the more controversial language inserted by Iran and Cuba.

"It could have been worse, in a way, but it also could have been better." The whole scenario was chaotic, with a lack of clarity over what would or wouldn't be voted on. "It was a like the bar scene in Star Wars," he said.

And the ITU is not likely to stop its attempts to increase its power, cautioned McDowell.

"This is an organization that has greatly expanded its jurisdiction and will continue to do so," he said. "The countries that accomplished what they did last month are patient, and they are incrementalists."

"You could hear they [nations that voted yes] have very real concerns about Internet governance," agreed David Redl, a lawyer for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. "They are not likely to stop talking about it just because the US doesn't want to. We need to look at this going forward and do a lot of groundwork with nations around the world."

The Congressman who introduced the panel, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), said that as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he was determined to stop the UN from messing with the current structure of Internet governance.

"I predict dire consequences if the Internet is regulated by the UN or other inter-governmental entities," said Goodlatte. "Censorship could become the new norm," and free-market principles could be threatened, he added.

The debate had many different forces in the US working in the same direction. Congress, after all, had passed a resolution sending a "hands off" message to the ITU which was overwhelmingly supported by both parties. Today, jokes abounded about the rarity of seeing both AT&T and Google with representatives on the same panel, actually agreeing with each other on policy.

Even though the leadership in developing countries are the ones pushing for the ITU to have more power, the idea that it will help their citizens was dismissed during today's talk.

"The direction the ITU is headed in will hurt the developing world the most," said McDowell. "They fear a free... Internet. They fear it politically, and they don't care about the economics."

The ITU is dominated by big telephone companies, more than by national governments. Those companies want to extract more money from the traffic they carry, and they'd love to pass rules forcing companies like Google to give them more money.

At the end of the day, the sovereign nations that participate in the UN are still free to do as they please with the Internet infrastructure in their own countries; that power comes with sovereignty. For the US, which holds perhaps the vast majority of valuable web sites (and their servers), this means that splitting off from the rest of the world (the ITU) and doing their own thing could be practically invisible to American users, correct?

It just seems like we (Americans) have our own sites and servers, and if we don't like what the ITU is saying, we can do as we please.

I understand that there would be very large, negative repercussions if such a split occurred- the whole point of the Internet is that it is a _single_ global network- and maybe even some UN sanctions involved, but at the end of the day, these people make it sound as if the Internet can be controlled, but the Internet is controlled by the people that own the servers, own the software, and own the connections. It is and will always be immune to oppression to some extent because even a small band of hackers that represent freedom of expression and information on a darknet can keep "the Internet" alive.

When you look at the list of countries who currently have seats on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, you start to worry that what the UN actually does in a lot of areas is give intolerant and totalitarian regimes legitimacy in their actions.

They undo so much of their good work by allowing the UN to be used as a tool by these countries in their quest to oppress and stay in power.

When you look at the list of countries who currently have seats on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, you start to worry that what the UN actually does in a lot of areas is give intolerant and totalitarian regimes legitimacy in their actions.

They undo so much of their good work by allowing the UN to be used as a tool by these countries in their quest to oppress and stay in power.

That's because the UN operates as a democracy - everyone has a vote. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, permits its permanent members to say "nyet", and that one vote trumps the rest of the Security Council.

Which is more democratic? There is a broader question as well - which voting method produces the most sensible/meaningful/useful outcomes?

Winston Churchill wrote:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

That's because the UN operates as a democracy - everyone has a vote. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, permits its permanent members to say "nyet", and that one vote trumps the rest of the Security Council.

Which is more democratic? There is a broader question as well - which voting method produces the most sensible/meaningful/useful outcomes?

I understand that there would be very large, negative repercussions if such a split occurred- the whole point of the Internet is that it is a _single_ global network- and maybe even some UN sanctions involved, but at the end of the day, these people make it sound as if the Internet can be controlled, but the Internet is controlled by the people that own the servers, own the software, and own the connections. It is and will always be immune to oppression to some extent because even a small band of hackers that represent freedom of expression and information on a darknet can keep "the Internet" alive.

Yeah the UN may be able to control traffic to other countries but inside the US of A, they're powerless.

"In the end, 55 companies refused to sign on, while 89 did sign the resolution."

Companies, or COUNTRIES?

I caught that, too, and the article also states "In fact, several of the companies that sided with the US only ended up in that position because of an overreach on the part of Iran, ..." as well. Are we just abandoning all pretense?

When you look at the list of countries who currently have seats on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, you start to worry that what the UN actually does in a lot of areas is give intolerant and totalitarian regimes legitimacy in their actions.

They undo so much of their good work by allowing the UN to be used as a tool by these countries in their quest to oppress and stay in power.

That's because the UN operates as a democracy - everyone has a vote. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, permits its permanent members to say "nyet", and that one vote trumps the rest of the Security Council.

Which is more democratic? There is a broader question as well - which voting method produces the most sensible/meaningful/useful outcomes?

Winston Churchill wrote:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

It's ironic that so many UN reps who are voting democratically represent countries that are not so, and it seems the less democratically inclined a country is, the more likely it is to support the ITU power grab. Personally, I'm calling bullshit on the whole thing. That ought to do it.

That's because the UN operates as a democracy - everyone has a vote. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, permits its permanent members to say "nyet", and that one vote trumps the rest of the Security Council.

Which is more democratic? There is a broader question as well - which voting method produces the most sensible/meaningful/useful outcomes?

That's because the UN operates as a democracy - everyone has a vote. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, permits its permanent members to say "nyet", and that one vote trumps the rest of the Security Council.

Which is more democratic? There is a broader question as well - which voting method produces the most sensible/meaningful/useful outcomes?

Meaningful to whom?

It's a philosophical question.

No. Your point is just bs. The UN is no democracy. A democracy involves people voting their personal wishes. But the UN members are not people representing themeselves but representatives of governments, many of which are anti-democratic in nature. Governments are not people, too, my friend. So there is no inconsistency in democratic peoples ignoring the pleas of despots appealing to the results of a democratic vote at the UN.

This internet control thing is mainly coming from the OIC.Stop the islamic subversion of our freedoms.Once internet is a 'human right' it's been clear for 1400 years who's human(only muslims) and who's ape/pig/[fill in bad stuff](any non-muslim)

This internet control thing is mainly coming from the OIC.Stop the islamic subversion of our freedoms.Once internet is a 'human right' it's been clear for 1400 years who's human(only muslims) and who's ape/pig/[fill in bad stuff](any non-muslim)

Like the well known Islamic Caliphate of Cuba. Not to mention those hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism, China and Russia. And for that matter the right wing bible thumpers in Australia and the UK pushing for mandatory internet blocks (a la Great Firewall of China), they're all closet Muslims.

Seriously... if things start to get regulated it won't be long before the techie populace moves to its own unregulated version leaving the poor "normal" citizen stuck with whatever the gov't allows them to have.

This internet control thing is mainly coming from the OIC.Stop the islamic subversion of our freedoms.Once internet is a 'human right' it's been clear for 1400 years who's human(only muslims) and who's ape/pig/[fill in bad stuff](any non-muslim)

Like the well known Islamic Caliphate of Cuba. Not to mention those hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism, China and Russia. And for that matter the right wing bible thumpers in Australia and the UK pushing for mandatory internet blocks (a la Great Firewall of China), they're all closet Muslims.

The sharia subversion doctrine is pretty much the same as the KGB subversion doctrine.Islam is communism with a god.

This internet control thing is mainly coming from the OIC.Stop the islamic subversion of our freedoms.Once internet is a 'human right' it's been clear for 1400 years who's human(only muslims) and who's ape/pig/[fill in bad stuff](any non-muslim)

Like the well known Islamic Caliphate of Cuba. Not to mention those hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism, China and Russia. And for that matter the right wing bible thumpers in Australia and the UK pushing for mandatory internet blocks (a la Great Firewall of China), they're all closet Muslims.

The sharia subversion doctrine is pretty much the same as the KGB subversion doctrine.Islam is communism with a god.

Yeah, don't you hate how those Muslims went to war against good Christian countries in the Crusades. And told Jews to convert or leave the country your family has lived in for centuries (not to mention blaming Jews for kidnapping babies to use in their unholy rituals, and undergoing regular pogroms against them).

Or maybe you're talking about stuff like the Islamic Australia Policy? Maybe the way those darn Muslims ran South Africa gets your goat? Or their slavery policies?

(Or maybe I'm just saying you're a barely literate moron with no grasp of history or sense of global power structures).

I'm strongly against it, but even if it doesn't pass countries will censor internet anyway. They already do it, they don't need UN blessing. China has its great wall, US size domains, France and UK also want to block stuff.

The American-centric view may be missing the point a bit (although access to global markets are of course important to US corporations), looking at it from the perspective of those countries which support this move the governance issues involved may seem vitally important.

Just as the west - lead by the US - tries to impose it's view of free trade restricted by (protectionist?) intellectual property rights on the rest of the world, the rest of the world has it's own ideas, with a majority seemingly keen to get involved with writing the rules.

As it stands, the West has the economic power - and the control of important technology companies - to impose it's will on others.

It will be interesting to see if, or how long, that will last. China and India together have about 1/3 of the world population, vastly more than the West. In future, will the West turn to the UN - which it created in its own image - for help when it finds itself on the receiving end of some sort of strong arm tactics?

Or do you think we can bury own heads in the sand, cut ourselves off from Africa, Asia and South America, and pretend we can get along just fine on our own?

The only nut-jobbery is in this kind of leftist/liberal selfdenial, i'm talking about two different things.

I don't like (A) and I don't like [A], it's the same thing in a different package.Submitting others to ideology, ea The Thought Police.

KGB was renamed FSB, when Putin was elected he said that FSB was back(!) in control in a speech at the FSB. KGB is technically very alive and well, just formally not since it's been renamed.It's not about red or muslim under the bed, it's about ~5-10% collectivist anti-indivual individuals frigtened of any new thought from others that might leave them out of control. The reason they live up those ideas is because it pays them by extraction, looting and the self fulfilling idea of just dominating others' mind and tell them what to think, not creation(or new thoughts). It's a typical leftist trait you can see on how vile they defend. They defend on ad hominem attacks, mockery and negationism, not on content. Ofcourse over time they will change content to make their point defendable (rewrite history for political reasons, historical revisionism). If I were you or some other readers, check your schoolbooks on how bad America and Christianity is and how good some some particular other religion is...

Really I love the consititutional republic of free indivuduals and the idea of free market capitalism.What I see now is less and less free speech, political correctness (saying only what others/politics allows), state controlled capitalism, erosion of your constitution and rising socialism.

All the crap you'd never get rid of here in Europe.If they succeed, USA will be just another average country on the world block of countries.The free USA was and still is the guardian of my freedoms here in Eurabia.

coslie wrote:

Ah, the transitive property of nut-jobbery. You don't like A, and you don't like B, therefore A=B.

Funny you should mention the KGB, an agency that hasn't technically existed for 20 years. People like you used to see a Red under every bed, now it's a Muslim instead.

Seriously... if things start to get regulated it won't be long before the techie populace moves to its own unregulated version leaving the poor "normal" citizen stuck with whatever the gov't allows them to have.

:shakes head:

It would most certainly happen, but my question is in the event of a gov't take over, what's going to become the backbone? Once you lose the ISPs, the copper is useless and an automatic tracer, even if you manage to use it. Granted that's an extreme event, but it still worrisome.

The knowledge is there and can be duplicated, but that initial system requires lots of set-up. I mean I read a cool piece on sending computer programs over radio waves in audio signals, but that's a big 20 year leap back in time.

There's just a lot of steam brewing world-wide and with the internet providing RT news, revolt isn't hard to imagine being incited, afterall we humans love war. But the Battle for the Internet is not one I'm interested in seeing jail-time or dying over.

I understand that there would be very large, negative repercussions if such a split occurred- the whole point of the Internet is that it is a _single_ global network- and maybe even some UN sanctions involved, but at the end of the day, these people make it sound as if the Internet can be controlled, but the Internet is controlled by the people that own the servers, own the software, and own the connections. It is and will always be immune to oppression to some extent because even a small band of hackers that represent freedom of expression and information on a darknet can keep "the Internet" alive.

Yeah the UN may be able to control traffic to other countries but inside the US of A, they're powerless.

Actually even within the borders of other countries, the UN's reach is limited to what the other countries permit.

This nonsense will only ever stop once we dismantle the entire concept of the sovereign nation state. Governments only seek to perpetuate and justify their own existence to remain in power, whether it's through a semblance of a democratic mandate or through force

The whole ITU fiasco (as well as ACTA) goes to show that governments everywhere, both democratic and authoritarian, do not actually care about the interests of the people. All that matters is their own, and those of their backers.

Yeah, don't you hate how those Muslims went to war against good Christian countries in the Crusades. And told Jews to convert or leave the country your family has lived in for centuries (not to mention blaming Jews for kidnapping babies to use in their unholy rituals, and undergoing regular pogroms against them).

Or maybe you're talking about stuff like the Islamic Australia Policy? Maybe the way those darn Muslims ran South Africa gets your goat? Or their slavery policies?

(Or maybe I'm just saying you're a barely literate moron with no grasp of history or sense of global power structures).

Bit of a threadjack, but if you're going to accuse somebody as having no grasp of history, you might want to read up on the Crusades a bit. They were initiated as a defense against Muslim agression. Also, slavery is alive and well in the Muslim world. Hmm, come to think of it, I guess that makes you a barely literate moron with no grasp of history or the current state of things.

"I predict dire consequences if the Internet is regulated by the UN or other inter-governmental entities," said Goodlatte. "Censorship could become the new norm," and free-market principles could be threatened, he added.

Ha Ha Ha. Did he say this with a straight face while we have the MPAA and the RiAA here in the US on basically McCarthy style witch hunts attempting to push for unrealistic censorship by influencing the US Gov't - having laws changed that favor big corporations because they're greedy and not making enough money.

They attempt to kill file-sharing (of any type) they constantly attack a technology (torrnets) that drastically inmproves internet traffic (legitimate or otherwise) and so on. Racketeering - mob-style governance - acting as Law Enforcement through raids and seizures.

I am in favor of the rest of the world (such as China and Russia and Cuba and Iran) NOT having direct control over or veto power on decisions regarding how the Internet is going to function or be controlled. I do understand thigns could get significantly worse.

But we should not kid ourselves that the US Gov't is not being hypocritical here.

If US Gov't is going to talk the talk - then they need to "put up" and shut down the actions of Big Media being allowed to do what they have been doing for the past several years.

Not to mention stopping the actions of ICE and DHS that constantly violate due process and illegal seizures - 4th and 14th Ammendments. Where are the checks and balances ?

I am not very happy with this article, while I doubt I would agree with the proposed changes, a more technical discussion of the proposals and an explanation of what are the supposed grievances would have been nice. This article reads too much like propaganda.

That's because the UN operates as a democracy - everyone has a vote. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, permits its permanent members to say "nyet", and that one vote trumps the rest of the Security Council.

Which is more democratic? There is a broader question as well - which voting method produces the most sensible/meaningful/useful outcomes?

Winston Churchill wrote:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Democracy is a tyranny of the majority over the minority. It's not a good method of governance.

If those other 89 countries want to be fascistic bastards then they can. Cut them out of the current Internet. Let them spend there own cash to build their own networks. Fuck em. Their Internet will suck as censorship stifles innovation.

The rest of us can use the free and open internet. Well, as free and open as it stands at least. Ban all 89 countries from the Internet forever. Bye bye fascistic totalitarian assholes! ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

I think my experience is that Americans tend to be more suspicious of government, and less suspicious of large corporations, whereas a lot of the rest of the world is more suspicious of large corporations, and less suspicious of government. I think the view is that government intevention is a bulwark against corporate greed and a corresponding lack of accountability to "the people", whereas in the US it's more like, "at least we know what the corporation's motives are (profit) and we can always sue them". I'm not saying either view is right, they're probably both half right, but I think this is the underpinnings of the disconnect.

That's because the UN operates as a democracy - everyone has a vote. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, permits its permanent members to say "nyet", and that one vote trumps the rest of the Security Council.

Which is more democratic? There is a broader question as well - which voting method produces the most sensible/meaningful/useful outcomes?

Winston Churchill wrote:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Democracy is a tyranny of the majority over the minority. It's not a good method of governance.

My favorite definition of democracy allegedly came from Benjamin Franklin but I guess there's some disagreement over whether it was, in fact, said by him:"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."